Search

BackgroundPeople living with HIV (PLWH) commonly report marijuana use for chronic pain, although there is limited empirical evidence to support its use. There is hope that marijuana may reduce prescription opioid use. Our objective was to investigate whether marijuana use among PLWH who have chronic pain is associated with changes in pain severity and prescribed opioid use (prescribed opioid initiation and discontinuation).MethodsParticipants completed self-report measures of chronic pain and marijuana use at an index visit and were followed up for 1 year in the Center for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems (CNICS). Self-reported marijuana use was the exposure variable. Outcome variables were changes in pain and initiation or discontinuation of opioids during the study period. The relationship between exposure and outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models for pain and multivariable binary logistic regression models for opioid initiation/discontinuation.ResultsOf 433 PLWH and chronic pain, 28% reported marijuana use in the past 3 months. Median pain severity at the index visit was 6.3/10 (interquartile range 4.7-8.0). Neither increases nor decreases in marijuana use were associated with changes in pain severity, and marijuana use was not associated with either lower odds of opioid initiation or higher odds of opioid discontinuation.ConclusionsWe did not find evidence that marijuana use in PLWH is associated with improved pain outcomes or reduced opioid prescribing. This suggests that caution is warranted when counseling PLWH about potential benefits of recreational or medical marijuana.

Background: Opioid pain management in cancer survivorship is a complex and understudied topic. Methods: The authors conducted in‐depth, qualitative interviews to understand clinician approaches to opioid pain management in chronic cancer pain and to generate ideas for improvement. They used a rigorous, inductive, qualitative, descriptive approach to examine clinician (n = 20) perspectives about opioid pain management in survivorship, including oncologists (n = 5), palliative care clinicians (n = 8), primary care clinicians (n = 5), and pain management specialists (n = 2). Results: The findings indicated that no consistent medical home exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors and that there are fundamental differences in how each subspecialty approaches chronic pain management in survivorship (e.g., "Do we think of this as noncancer pain or cancer pain?... This is in this limbo zone—this gray zone—because it's cancer‐related pain, right?"). Simultaneously, clinicians are influenced by their peers' perceptions of their opioid prescribing decisions, sparking intraprofessional tension when disagreement occurs. In these instances, clinicians described overthinking and doubting their clinical decision‐making as well as a sense of judgment, pressure, and/or shame. Finally, clinicians acknowledged a fear of consequences for opioid prescribing decisions. Specifically, participants cited conflict with patients, sometimes escalating to aggression and threats of violence, as well as potential disciplinary actions and/or legal consequences. Conclusions: Participants suggested that opportunities to improve chronic cancer pain care include developing clear, systematic guidance for chronic cancer pain management, facilitating clinician communication and consultation, creating tailored survivorship care plans in partnership with patients, and developing accessible, evidence‐based, complementary pain treatments. Pain in cancer remission is common, yet there is no clear medical home or systematic treatment approach for people with chronic cancer pain. Thus, it is essential to develop clear, systematic guidance for chronic cancer pain management, facilitate clinician communication and consultation, create tailored survivorship care plans alongside patients, and improve access to evidence‐based nonpharmacologic pain treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundChronic pain occurs in up to 85% of persons living with HIV and is commonly treated with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). We investigated the impact of chronic pain and LTOT on HIV outcomes.MethodsThis was prospective cohort study conducted between July 2015 and July 2016 in 5 HIV primary care clinics. Chronic pain was defined as ≥moderate pain for ≥3 months on the Brief Chronic Pain Questionnaire. Chronic pain and LTOT were assessed at an index visit. Suboptimal retention, defined as at least one "no-show" to primary care, and virologic failure were measured over the subsequent year. Multivariable logistic regression models were built for each outcome adjusting for site.ResultsAmong 2334 participants, 25% had chronic pain, 27% had suboptimal retention, 12% had virologic failure, and 19% were prescribed LTOT. Among individuals not on LTOT, chronic pain was associated with increased odds of suboptimal retention [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10 to 1.93, P = 0.009] and virologic failure (aOR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.80, P < 0.001). Among individuals with chronic pain, there was no association between LTOT and retention, but LTOT was associated with lower rates of virologic failure (aOR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.96, P = 0.03).ConclusionsChronic pain in participants not on LTOT was associated with virologic failure. This reinforces the need to identify effective chronic pain treatments for persons living with HIV and investigate their impact on HIV outcomes. The apparent protective association between LTOT and virologic failure in those with pain merits further exploration.

Background: Clinicians treating cancer‐related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence‐based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer‐related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis. Methods: The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9‐point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three‐step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments. Results: Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer‐related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis. Conclusion: Study findings provide urgently needed consensus‐based guidance for clinicians managing cancer‐related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer. Plain Language Summary: Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer‐related pain and nonmedical stimulant use.Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis. Clinicians treating cancer‐related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence‐based management guidance. The study findings provide urgently needed consensus‐based guidance for clinicians managing cancer‐related pain in the context of nonmedical stimulant use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractBackground: Despite the importance of identifying co-occurring psychiatric disorders in substance abuse treatment programs, there are few appropriate and validated instruments available to substance abuse treatment staff to conduct brief screen for these conditions. This paper describes the development, implementation and validation of a brief screening instrument for mental health diagnoses and trauma among a diverse sample of Black, Hispanic and White women in substance abuse treatment. With input from clinicians and consumers, we adapted longer existing validated instruments into a 14 question screen covering demographics, mental  health symptoms and physical and sexual violence exposure. All women entering treatment (methadone, residential and out-patient) at five treatment sites were screened at intake (N = 374).Results: Eighty nine percent reported a history of interpersonal violence, and 70% reported a history of sexual assault. Eighty-eight percent reported mental health symptoms in the last 30 days. The screening questions administered to 88 female clients were validated against in-depth psychiatric diagnostic assessments by trained mental health clinicians. We estimated measures of predictive validity, including sensitivity, specificity and predictive values positive and negative. Screening items were examined multiple ways to assess utility. The screen is a useful and valid proxy for PTSD but not for other mental illness.Conclusion: Substance abuse treatment programs should incorporate violence exposure questions into clinical use as a matter of policy. More work is needed to develop brief screening tools measures for front-line treatment staff to accurately assess other mental health needs of women entering substance abuse treatment